The election prospects

[ExFlyer]

20 hours ago, myata said:

I would like to vote for the Conservatives (my preferred choice) on one condition only: they bring in meaningful change, the proportional representation.

It is needed; with our entrenched rusty and screeching system we're heading into a social and political dead end. There won't be many more opportunities till its apparent, if not already.

Let's see if they have the responsibility; the sight and the courage to do what needs to be done. Now.

And if they are too comfy and cozy at the two centuries trough; if no let's not look and think until its completely broken, look all is going great only some tweaks and a change of portrait; then I'll have no qualms electing Trudeaus again.

If they take us to the inevitable destination at the quickest pace and the shortest way so be it. It can be the only way to wake us up. If at all possible, already.

So, you will vote for anyone that makes an election promise of "proportional representation?

Know in full well election promises are rarely kept?

Knowing that every party in the past number of decades has promised election reform? And failed.

Doesn't take much to pleasure you eh? LOL

 

[myata]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Knowing that every party in the past number of decades has promised election reform? And failed.

You'd happen to have information on the previous PC promises on the subject? Would appreciate it!

As to the Libs they lied and so, will lie whatever promised. And those were the only options physically possible.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least though. It's very smug and comfy at the trough knowing that you cannot be challenged ever; and at some point in the natural evolution, that can be all that matters.

Edited August 15, 2023 by myata

[ExFlyer]

22 minutes ago, myata said:

You'd happen to have information on the previous PC promises on the subject? Would appreciate it!

As to the Libs they lied and so, will lie whatever promised. And those were the only options physically possible.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least though. It's very smug and comfy at the trough knowing that you cannot be challenged ever; and at some point in the natural evolution, that can be all that matters.

OK, here:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/less-urgency-to-reform-electoral-system-after-harper-defeat-trudeau-says/article32443900/

https://canadians.org/analysis/harper-government-rejects-calls-make-voting-system-fairer/

https://www.institutbroadbent.ca/harper_government_s_leap_of_logic_to_justify_voter_suppression

https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/421/ERRE/Brief/BR8454578/br-external/BoutilierRoger-e.pdf

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/electoral-reform-spells-trouble-for-stephen-harper-s-conservatives-h-bert/article_07f34997-5f11-5457-b170-9238a140c390.html

..........

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

OK, here:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/less-urgency-to-reform-electoral-system-after-harper-defeat-trudeau-says/article32443900/

https://canadians.org/analysis/harper-government-rejects-calls-make-voting-system-fairer/

https://www.institutbroadbent.ca/harper_government_s_leap_of_logic_to_justify_voter_suppression

https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/421/ERRE/Brief/BR8454578/br-external/BoutilierRoger-e.pdf

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/electoral-reform-spells-trouble-for-stephen-harper-s-conservatives-h-bert/article_07f34997-5f11-5457-b170-9238a140c390.html

..........

But in fairness those aren;t examples of the conservatives promising electoral reform though, Most are just opinion pieces from left wing sources saying harper is a bad person for not wanting electoral reform.

I thought when you were talking about the conservatives 'breaking their promise' on 'electoral reform' you were going to go with the proposed Senate vote concept that harper wanted, but if we're being fair that got shot down by the courts so it's not really a 'broken' promise as much as just one that was impossible to deliver.  Depends how you look at that i guess.

[myata]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I thought when you were talking about the conservatives 'breaking their promise' on 'electoral reform' you were going to go with the proposed Senate vote concept that harper wanted, but if we're being fair that got shot down by the courts so it's not really a 'broken' promise as much as just one that was impossible to deliver.  Depends how you look at that i guess.

So we have one head that wanted to be seen as supporting it, but when given the opportunity to make it happen, not really. And the other one, that is just happy as the things are. Change is not possible. 100% success no matter how you "vote". Q.E.D.

[ExFlyer]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But in fairness those aren;t examples of the conservatives promising electoral reform though, Most are just opinion pieces from left wing sources saying harper is a bad person for not wanting electoral reform.

I thought when you were talking about the conservatives 'breaking their promise' on 'electoral reform' you were going to go with the proposed Senate vote concept that harper wanted, but if we're being fair that got shot down by the courts so it's not really a 'broken' promise as much as just one that was impossible to deliver.  Depends how you look at that i guess.

They are example of saying there will be something done and nothing happened.

Yes, opinions but based on events, or non events. As for the courts response, there are many ways of drafting things that make sure courts will negate it.

I am a Senate hater. Serves no purpose except to delay legislation and reward political buddies.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

So we have one head that wanted to be seen as supporting it, but when given the opportunity to make it happen, not really. And the other one, that is just happy as the things are. Change is not possible. 100% success no matter how you "vote". Q.E.D.

Well if you mean harper as 'one head' then no.  He took it all the way to the supreme court and was shot down in a decision i feel was entirely unreasonable.   So when you say 'not really' you're just showing you have no understanding of any of this stuff.

Maybe stick with lego?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes, opinions but based on events, or non events. As for the courts response, there are many ways of drafting things that make sure courts will negate it.

Well - while that's true i think we can clearly see this wasn't a case of that.  The decision surprised many in the legal world and was a VERY questionable decision and harper was absolutely livid about it.

 

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I am a Senate hater. Serves no purpose except to delay legislation and reward political buddies.

Sure. No sane person would argue with you on that.

So the choices are make it actually useful or get rid of it.  And in fairness the conservatives have long supported making it actually do it's job properly, while the ndp has advocated for scrapping it, so both are better than the libs in that particular regard:)

Joe clark wanted it to be "Triple e"  (Elected, equal and effective) and harper wanted it to be more representative of the provinces to make it geography based to offset the population based disparity of the house of commons.  Layton just wanted it gone as i recall.

The conservatives opened up the constitution to try to make it happen and took the other to the supreme court to try to make it happen - can't say they didn't at least make an effort with regards to that topic.  Either would have radially changed how canada's politics works.

[myata]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure. No sane person would argue with you on that.

I'll try to translate this, OK? Not sane. Insane. But necessary. So forget it and move on. The election"" is coming!

Correct?

That looks exactly what sane people do, right?

Edited August 15, 2023 by myata

[ExFlyer]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

So we have one head that wanted to be seen as supporting it, but when given the opportunity to make it happen, not really. And the other one, that is just happy as the things are. Change is not possible. 100% success no matter how you "vote". Q.E.D.

Political banter, by any party,  cannot be relied on, let alone believed. They all have hidden agendas and the primary one is to stay in power.

We seem to have a 10 (approx) year tolerance for leaders so, Justins tenure should be up by now.

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, myata said:

I'll try to translate this, OK?

You can't even explain you OWN thoughts coherently - i doubt you'll be 'translating' anything anytime soon. Unless it's from 'sane' to 'crazytalk'.

Quote

Not sane. Insane. But necessary. So forget it and move on. The election"" is coming!

Ahhh.  Crazytalk it is then,.

 

Quote

Correct?

No, incoherent.

Quote

That looks exactly what sane people do, right?

There is no chance you have any knowledge of what a sane person would look like.

 

this is pretty simple.  In a DEMOCRACY - which is essentialy rule by the people - the PEOPLE have to get involved and choose the direction of their gov'ts.  That does NOT mean getting your lazy ass off the sofa to vote once every 4 years. 

If you want to see change, you have to work for it and make it happen. As MANY have.  That is what democracy is all about.

[myata]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If you want to see change, you have to work for it and make it happen.

Gotcha. Knock knock, the red door: no change. Any chance with the blue one? Nah thanks. "If you want to see change ta-ta-da!" straight from the coloring picture book.

Sounds sane, at least to some of us. The doctor knows.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Gotcha. Knock knock, the red door: no change. Any chance with the blue one? Nah thanks.

yeah  -it doesn't work when you do it from your mommies basement.  You actually have to go out into the real world  

It wasn't very long ago many of us decided the PC wouldn't change. So we started a new party with a whole bunch of other people that was very different, eventually taking over the PC.  If you think the CPC is the same as the old PC party you're too dumb to use a fork safely.

Political parties change all the time. ALL the time.  Chretien's version of the liberals is not justin's.  The party mulrioney ran is not the CPC. Jagger's NDP is not Layton's NDP

But yeah - I guess if you're a whiner crybaby living in mommies basement stuck on the sofa with no actual knowledge or experience - it can seem hard to change things.

[myata]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Political parties change all the time. ALL the time.  Chretien's version of the liberals is not justin's.  The party mulrioney ran is not the CPC. Jagger's NDP is not Layton's NDP

Such a heartwarming song, straight from the color picture book. Look we're so fuzzy and cute.. but no, can have only us, only adults allowed to go THERE. That's a no but you can always have us, look.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Such a heartwarming song, straight from the color picture book. Look we're so fuzzy and cute.. but no, can have only us, only adults allowed to go THERE. That's a no but you can always have us, look.

Well you've convinced me.  Nobody can figure out WHAT you convinced me about but you've convinced me.

[myata]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody can figure out WHAT you convinced me about but you've convinced me.

It politics it pays to play dumb when asked a clear question. In dumb politics, Canadian too obviously, it is considered an essential, even key skill (as seen in its apex performance, "The Circus Period" series). A show of "government accountability" for little children not yet grown enough to have a real democracy, in about two centuries.

It doesn't mean of course that the expert themselves are that. Maybe. Like, how would you know?

[CITIZEN_2015]

I will vote for Conservatives if they bring down immigration levels significantly but so far they haven't made any promises or event a hint they plan to do that. No party or leader has the balls to even say the right thing.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I will vote for Conservatives if they bring down immigration levels significantly but so far they haven't made any promises or event a hint they plan to do that. No party or leader has the balls to even say the right thing.

No party will be making any promises on ANYTHING - it's 2 years to the election. You'd have to be the worst kind of m0ron to do that - PP's not a m0ron.

But he has on numerous occasions said it needs to be reviewed and immigration needs to match the needs of canada.

And Justin has promised to increase it.

So ... gotta say, PP probably will bring it down - but justin DEFINITELY wont'.  Vote accordingly.

[myata]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

probably will

The take is, vote for the Libs then. They'll be the first to bring visible change here; even if down but not like there are options.

Look the blue twin can promise even do maybe-probably about anything but it'll be only for a term or two and then, back to the party! Hello my dears long time not really as countries go. Need to catch up on reduced bureaucratic capacity; and the immigration of course; how's the debt been doing by the way. And back again down the slide, how are you doing, no vertigo yet?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

The take is, vote for the Libs then. They'll be the first to bring visible change here; even if down but not like there are options.

That would suit your intelligence level.  Two parties - one makes things better and one makes things worse and you want to go with the one that makes thinks worse because 'visible'.

Sigh.  We had 4 billion years of evolution to work with and we got you.  It breaks my heart.

[Aristides]

On 8/14/2023 at 10:43 AM, Moonbox said:

  

As a giant country with huge geographical separation and wildly different priorities, it would be lousy.  Make Canada PR and the country would be run by the Greater Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver areas, with the anything in between and outside of that having a greatly diminished voice.    

It already is.

[WestCanMan]

On 8/14/2023 at 1:37 PM, myata said:

No it's you who are confused. In North Korea you're stuck with one default "party" because you don't have any other choice. And in a democracy, you must have a real choice, that's pretty much the definition. The problem here is, whoever was tasked with making a democratic facade for essentially a colonial system never understood or even bothered to think, what it is about. And no one, seemingly, noticed, in two centuries since. No, in a democracy to don't have to go to the blue "party" convention or the red one just because there are no other meaningful choices. You can pick the one that you like, interested in, that supports your interests and causes and can represent you. For real, not only in the pretty picture book.

Are the 3rd and 4th parties really political parties, or are they just there to siphon votes away from one of the two main parties? 

For example, in Canada or the US you could start up a Nazi party knowing that they wouldn't win, but they'd steal enough votes away from the Dems/Libs that it would give other parties a leg up on them. 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Are the 3rd and 4th parties really political parties, or are they just there to siphon votes away from one of the two main parties? 

For example, in Canada or the US you could start up a Nazi party knowing that they wouldn't win, but they'd steal enough votes away from the Dems/Libs that it would give other parties a leg up on them. 

It's actually an interesting question. It's often been brought up with regards to the ndp - its clear the supporters of the ndp aren't in it to win it, they want to be a disruptive voice even back when there weren't minority govts as much.

But they do make an impact, and therefore they do play a role in the political process.  Other parties do alter their behavior as a result.  I'd say they're more than just vote suckers.  But it depends how you look at it.

[Moonbox]

45 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It already is.

If you already see it that way, it only gets worse with PR.  As it stands, the big urban areas are under-represented on a per-capita basis, by a lot.  

[Legato]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's actually an interesting question. It's often been brought up with regards to the ndp - its clear the supporters of the ndp aren't in it to win it, they want to be a disruptive voice even back when there weren't minority govts as much.

But they do make an impact, and therefore they do play a role in the political process.  Other parties do alter their behavior as a result.  I'd say they're more than just vote suckers.  But it depends how you look at it.

You could vote Green, that is, if you're colour blind.